Submission 752
Touching Base Inc Submission
To: Community Affairs Legislation
Committee - Senate Committee Enquiry
on National Disability Insurance Scheme
Amendment (Securing the NDIS for
Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submitted via email to: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au
DATE: 1st June 2026 ______________________________________________________________________________
Touching Base Inc
Please reply by email to:
Saul Isbister
President, Touching Base Inc
0
Submission 752
Who we are
Touching Base was established in 2000 to bridge connections between people with disability
and sex workers, focusing on access, discrimination, human rights, legal issues and
attitudinal barriers. Touching Base has brought the disability sector and the sex industry
together in respectful and meaningful ways, through education, policy development,
lobbying, resources development and training workshops for disability workers and sex
workers.
Table of Contents
How things go can wrong when laws are amended 1 Twisted terms 3 Beware of further unintended consequences 3 Meet Sue and Francis 5 Recommendations 5
APPENDIX A: Case Study: The Impact of NDIS Service Removal
on a Married Couple 6 Overview 6 Background: A Profile of the Couple 6 Pre-NDIS 6
The Support Removal 7
Fails the pub test 8
The Consequences 11
Summary 12 Appendix 2: Poster of Sue & Francis case study 14 Appendix 3: Policy brief 15
- Introduction: The Erosion of Personhood 16
- Evidence of Malignant Social Psychology (MSP) 17
- Legal and Human Rights Non-Compliance 18
- Proposed Framework: Adopt Person-Centered Practice 19
- Key systemic recommendations 22 The 17 aspects of malignant social psychology 23
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 1
Submission 752
How things go can wrong when laws are amended
Following the 2024 ban on sexual services in the NDIS Act, the then Minister for the
NDIS, Hon. Bill Shorten encouraged Touching Base to work with the Department of
Social Services (DSS) and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to develop
clear policy guidance on what disability-specific sexual supports the NDIS would fund.
When Senator Ayers had introduced the amendment to the NDIS Act in Committee, he
assured Federal Parliamentarians that sexual services would be narrowly defined,
stating: “It does not include, for example, provision of therapy or counselling or other
kinds of assistance that a participant or a potential participant could have in their plan
now.“ As the term sexual services was not defined in the NDIS ACT, our negotiations
with the DSS and NDIA commenced on the understanding that the term sexual services
would be narrowly defined when applied at an operational level.
Our work was to identify which disability-specific sexuality supports, requiring a sex
worker to assist, would be funded, as many essential sexuality supports are not able to
be provided by other support workers.
Support workers cannot help the person/s with a disability to:
-
Position them sexually (transfers must refer to standard Manual Handling procedures)
-
Help with penetration of any opening (e.g. put a penis inside an anus or vagina)
-
Physically assist with masturbation (e.g. physically guide someone’s hand to masturbate)
-
Be in the room during the sexual act
-
Put on/insert contraception or sex toys that need to be inserted (e.g. put a condom on a person’s penis or insert a dildo into a vagina)1
1 NDIA Research Paper: Sexual Activity Supports, 10/7/2020, p.15 (released under FOI. FOI 23/24-1401)
Quoting Northcott Sexuality and Relationship Policy p.4
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 2
Submission 752
Twisted terms
The NDIS website currently states:
“Under the laws of the NDIS, we also cannot fund sexual services and sex
work, alcohol or drugs”2
Rather than the narrow definition promised by Senator Ayer, during our negotiations the
NDIA CEO instead announced a very broad operational interpretation of sexual
services would be based on a dictionary definition. This is of significant concern as NOT
only are services not narrowly defined, but the prohibition has been extended to cover
“sex work”, meaning any services a sex worker may provide.
This is an extraordinary defiance of Parliaments’ intentions. An amendment put
forward by Senator Hansen in 2024 to prohibit “sex worker services” was firmly
defeated when voted on in Parliament! 3
The NDIS’s overly broad operational definition fails to differentiate between sexual
services for gratification and other forms of sexual supports provided by sex workers - in
which the primary focus is providing physical assistance, therapy or education, not
sexual gratification for pleasure. Remember these include types of personal and
sensitive physical assistance that support staff can’t provide.
Beware of further unintended consequences
Currently the government is looking to dramatically reduce funding for supports,
regardless of individual circumstances (proposed section 34A) and give the NDIS
Minister Henry VIII powers to make changes after the Bill passes (Schedule 5, item 1).
Touching Base is very concerned that together, these changes shift the focus of
decision-making about ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports away from the individual
2 Website extract dated 29 May 2026 3 Motion moved by Senator Hansen to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, Sheet 2751 “A support is not an NDIS support for a participant or prospective participant if the support includes sex worker services.” 22/08/2024 Votes: Noes 38 / Ayes 12.
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 3
Submission 752
needs and goals of participants and toward the financial sustainability of the Scheme;
with limited or no oversight by Parliament and limited/repealed rights to appeal
decisions that may cause direct harm to participants.
Based on figures given in an interview on ABC Radio Melbourne Drive with Ali Moore,
Minister Shorten said: “we received 228 requests for advice related to requests for
sexual activity supports. In 12 months, up to the 30th of April. None were granted.” 4
Minister Shorten said there were “around 650,000” on the scheme at that time. 228 is
approximately 0.0351% of 650,000, meaning only 3.5 participants out of every 10,000
people on the scheme requested this type of support.
Let’s be frank and clear. Funding such a small number of requests was never going to
be an unsustainable drain on the scheme’s budget.
4 8th July 2024 Minister Shorten interview on ABC Radio Melbourne Drive with Ali Moore
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 4
Submission 752
Meet Sue and Francis
The case of Sue and Francis is a timely reminder that serious unintended health and wellbeing consequences can arise when reasonable and necessary supports - that were previously funded - are removed with no regard to the outcomes for the NDIS participants.
Sue and Francis, both in their 50s, live with Cerebral Palsy. For nearly two decades, they navigated their relationship independently. However, as mobility declined, physical support became essential for their conjugal life - a basic human right they consider core to their marriage.
Conjugal sessions/supports were previously funded by their State Government, then the NDIS, as sexual supports to be carried out by a sex worker
As a result of the services being removed, multiple health issues have occurred, along with a lower degree of social and community participation and a halt to marital conjugal relations - which are considered a basic human right.
We have attached the full case study of Sue and Francis as an Appendix to this submission, along with a poster we will be using to raise awareness of the negative effects of past decisions and the current policy settings.
We have also produced a policy brief to show how far the NDIA has strayed from its own identified best practice of person-centred care when dealing with Sue and Francis.
Recommendations
Recommendation
1. That more time should be taken to thoroughly review the proposed changes to
the NDIS ACT in the Senate.
2. That co-design with peak peer-based disability organisations is an essential
aspect of the process moving forward.
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 5
Submission 752
APPENDIX A: Case Study: The Impact of NDIS Service Removal
on a Married Couple
Overview
● Participants: Sue and Francis5, aged in their 50’s, married, both living with Cerebral Palsy, they are non-verbal and have intensive support needs
● Services Removed: Conjugal
Sessions/Supports. These visits were previously funded by the NDIA as sexual supports to be carried out by a sex worker
● Impact: ○ Multiple Health Issues have occurred - see consequences ○ Lower degree of social and community participation ○ A halt to marital conjugal relations which are considered a basic human right
Background: A Profile of the Couple
Pre-NDIS
Sue and Francis both live with cerebral palsy, use wheelchairs and receive support for all daily activities. Physical limitations meant that sex for the first 19 years of their married life “was a logistical exercise of using what we could do for ourselves and enjoying it… Our physical ability to enjoy sex without another’s assistance narrowed down and disappeared in about 2009.”
Since then Sue and Francis have required assistance throughout the entirety of their sexual relations.
“Of course we tried various sexual positions and toys. But our hand function is not good enough to even allow us to masturbate ourselves or one another. While we rely upon paid support staff to dress, feed, toilet, bathe, etc, us, we are not permitted to ask them for assistance with having sex.” As their mobility and dexterity declined it became necessary for positioning support and some hands on assisted maneuvering to take place. These supports were provided by a sex worker funded under their State-based disability funding package up until the introduction of the NDIS. Under this arrangement “…we were permitted to use a modest proportion of our funding to engage a sex worker”.
5 Sue and Francis are pseudonyms
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 6
Submission 752
Since NDIS
Sue and Francis have been on the NDIS for approximately twelve years, and have requested sexual supports in every review.
2015
After the NDIS came into effect, Francis had funding approved in his December 2015 NDIS plan for a continuation of these sexual supports under the category of Improved daily living skills - using the term conjugal sessions:
“Therapeutic supports of 20 speech therapy, 40 OT, physiotherapy 30, massage supports and 20 conjugal sessions to be self-managed with flexibility of support and receipts for services to be collated in case of auditing.”
2016
Francis was again allocated NDIS approved funding for his conjugal support in his November 2016 plan, under Core Supports:
“Core supports to assist with daily activities and community participation. Support MAY include transport, continence products, assistance with self-care activities every day, as well as message [sic - massage] and Conjugal Support to assist me to achieve my goals of maintaining my relationship with Sue, my wife. Funding may be used flexibly between these supports.’
The Support Removal
2017 - 2018
Francis reported that by 2017 & 2018, “We had received the message from the NDIA that they were no longer turning a blind eye, but that we weren’t permitted to use our funding for that purpose [conjugal supports].”
An NDIA letter declining a Request for Additional Supports to Sue (April 2018) stated:
“For the purposes of this decision I would like to firstly clarify the term “conjugal
supports” to mean the payment of services for a sex worker to physicallystimulate a person for sexual pleasure.”
The agency then outlined in an outcome letter why the funding for conjugal supports was now being declined, under Section 34 of the ,NDIS Act6, as follows:
6 NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME ACT 2013 - SECT 34 Reasonable and necessary supports
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 7
Submission 752
“The reason the support does not meet b) criteria is because the support relates to a private activity, not involving social or economic participation.The reason the support does not meet c) criteria is because you requested this support at $300 $500 per hour and there was insufficient information provided on the cost and benefits of alternative cost of the support. The reason the support does not meet
d) criteria is because there was insufficient evidence provided to demonstrate the support is likely to be beneficial, having regard to good practice. The reason the support does not meet f) criteria is because it is not considered personal care, as outlined in the NDIA’s Operational Guidelines for Personal care supports. The guideline explains:
“Personal care supports relate to assistance with daily personal activities including assistance with, or supervision of, personal tasks of daily life”.
Based on this I have found that “conjugal supports” would not be considered personal care and therefore it is not most appropriately funded by the NDIS. I do acknowledge that personal care funding for a support worker to ‘position’ Sue*, or support access to a sex worker, could be a valid use of NDIS funded supports.I am aware the provision of “conjugal support” was previously delivered through self-managed funds. I would like to remind you about the requirements of self-management and that the funds can only be used in accordance with Section 34 of the NDIS Act.
Therefore, considering the evidence and information available to me, I have decided to decline the requested “conjugal supports”.”
Fails the pub test
The reasons provided for refusing to provide a support that would directly improve the NDIS participants capacity, health and wellbeing are inconsistent. The outcome letter highlighted that sexual pleasure was the reasoning behind the decline of support. However, sexual pleasure is not an isolated goal or outcome of providing a sex worker for sexual wellbeing. Sexual pleasure is a by-product of sexual experiences. Sexual supports that facilitate sexual experiences for people with disability are connected to better health outcomes7, such as increased quality of life, reduced rates of depression and anxiety, increased capacity to participate in social activities due to an increase in confidence, reduced physical symptoms such as pelvic floor spasms, and urinary incontinence.
7 Wotton, R (2024). Exploring the experiences of people with disability who access sex worker services, in Australia
(PhD). Western Sydney University.
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 8
Submission 752
“Personal care supports relate to assistance with daily personal activities including assistance with, or supervision of, personal tasks of daily life” This statement highlights the inconsistency of the NDIS decision whereby sexual experiences require personal care, and are a personal activity, as shown in the following statement. “I do acknowledge that personal care funding for a support worker to ‘position’ Sue*, or support access to a sex worker, could be a valid use of NDIS funded supports”.
The NDIS acknowledged that access to a sex worker could be a valid use of NDIS funded supports, in the same document that it refused funding on the basis it was an invalid use.
Sue and Francis have reported that the request was “For stimulation, not just positioning.” As explained on page one, the couple now required positioning support and some hands on assisted maneuvering to take place.
Francis sent a detailed request for an internal review of the decision. These efforts had no effect and the original decision was upheld by the NDIS. The sexual supports were declined.
2020
Francis’s doctor provided an opinion of the couple’s sexual needs in a letter to the NDIS dated November 2020:
“They require assistance with sexual expression which is essential to their long-term well-being. In particular the health benefits of bonding, marriage support, reducing stress, motivation and increasing self-confidence. Prolonged abstinence from sexual activity causes severe psychological distress to them. They require financial assistance to achieve this given their limited resources, and I think it is totally appropriate that the NDIS provide funds as a part of the care arrangements for a trained person to assist for this purpose.”
Their request for conjugal supports was again denied by the NDIA.
2022
In July 2022 Francis had an approved goal stating: “I would like to strengthen my relationship… to sustain a lifelong marriage.” In response he was only funded to obtain a psychological assessment under the category Capacity Building Supports, as follows:
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 9
Submission 752
STATED ITEM: $2,327.88 for funding of an Accredited Sex Therapist (Clinical Psychosexual Therapist) To assist you with exploring your goal in relation to re-establishing an intimate relationship with your wife. Please note this funding should not be used to fund Sex Worker services as this would be considered an everyday living cost.”
Francis reported, “I found this totally insulting that my need for conjugal sex can be substituted with counseling. My wife’s and my need for sex is physical, not psychological.”
At the time Francis found it impossible to find a suitable local clinical therapist. Communication difficulties compounded the issue of seeking interstate options as he uses eye-gaze technology to verbally communicate.
From 2018 to 2023 funding for Francis and Sue to receive conjugal support had been consistently declined.
2024
The NDIS Act amendment came into force on 3rd Oct 2024.This amendment excluded NDIS funding for sexual services. Sexual services were not defined in the Act but during debate in committee Senator Ayres8 assured his parliamentary colleagues a narrow definition was to be applied that would still allow disability-specific sexual supports that were currently funded, or eligible to be funded, to continue to be funded. In December 2024, in response to another review of a reviewable decision (RORD) initiated by Francis, the NDIA then required that Sue and Francis each have an occupational therapist conduct a functional capacity test.
The OT wrote in their report “As a result of their disabilities, Francis and Sue are frustrated and tormented by the inability to be independent with respect to this human right;… However, this does meet Francis’ NDIS goal of ‘I would like to strengthen my relationship with Sue to sustain a lifelong marriage’.”
Sue and Francis have emphasised, “We made sure that the need for sex work services were included. The NDIA disregarded the reports altogether!”
The RORD was unsuccessful in obtaining funding for their reasonable and necessary conjugal support needs.
8 Hansard Senate debate in Committee on National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 21/08/2024
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 10
Submission 752
2025
In correspondence with the President of Touching Base Sue wrote: “I think that this is a very essential service. A married couple denied a basic activity. An essential support for activity for any couple, especially seeing they can’t wipe their own nose. We get assistance with that but not intimacy.” September 2025
Francis is also in correspondence with Touching Base and recently wrote,
“How can the NDIS be compliant with the Convention9 when it withholds the means necessary to enable a married couple from being meaningful married? (see Art.23(1)(a)) 10. I would submit that sex is at the core of a marriage: all of the other features can be found in friendships.” 11
2026
Francis contacted his plan manager to confirm funding for support and a report from a Psychosexual Therapist, as stated in his plan from 2022-2023. Francis was informed that the funding had been removed.
The Consequences
Sue and Francis report multiple health consequences and concerns from being denied their right to have support for their conjugal relations. An OT report dated Dec 2024 stated: “As a result of their disabilities… they are frustrated and tormented by the inability to be independent with respect to this human right.”
Francis’ Doctor previously provided the following assessment: “Francis has cerebral palsy. He is married and his wife also has cerebral palsy. He has treatment with testosterone for hypogonadism, low bone density and low libido. They require assistance with sexual expression which is essential to their long term wellbeing. In particular the health benefits of bonding, marriage support, reducing stress, motivation and increasing self confidence.
Prolonged abstinence from sexual activity causes severe psychological distress to them. They require financial assistance to achieve this given their limited resources, and I think it is totally appropriate that the NDIS provide funds as part of their care arrangements for a suitable trained person to assist them for this purpose.”
9 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 10 CRPD - Art. 23(1)(a): “States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to marriage, family, parenthood and relationships, on an equal basis with others, so as to ensure that:
a) The right of all persons with disabilities who are of marriageable age to marry and to found a family on the basis of free and full consent of the intending spouses is recognized 11 Husband’s statement in correspondence with Touching Base President, Sept 2025
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 11
Submission 752
Physical and emotional consequences reported by Sue and Francis themselves include:
● Reduced quality of life. ● Physical and emotional
● Disability related sexual discomfortdysfunction ● Lower self esteem ● Severe spasms of the ● Lower mood pelvic floor area ● Increase in depression ● Persistent pelvic pain ● Increase in frustration ● Urinary incontinence ● Trouble with challenging
● Inability to address behaviourssexuality ● Reduced social
● Inability to position the participationbody for sexual experiences
The consequences the couple have reported are backed by research into the sexual experiences and difficulties experienced by people with cerebral palsy12. This indicates that Francis and Sue’s consequences are not isolated incidents, or related to anything other than the inability to experience ordinary sexual behaviours due to their disability.
Summary
The World Health Organisation recognises sex as a basic human right.13 However, Sue and Francis cannot engage in consensual sexual behaviours by themselves due to physical limitations caused by their disability. Removing the conjugal supports has resulted in the couple being unable to experience physical intimacy or sexual release within the bounds of their marriage.
The consequences of the NDIS removing sexual supports includes reduced quality of life, severe pain, discomfort, incontinence, and sexual dysfunction directly caused by the disability. This leaves our couple vulnerable to physical and psychological distress. This is abhorrent discrimination that should not be occurring in 2026.
It is critical to note that it has been determined by multiple health professionals that Sue & Francis’ only means of obtaining a functional remedy is by accessing the necessary support from sex workers.
12 Newell, A., Liang, N., Moskowitz, J., Lee, N., Pan, X. N., & Kim, H. (2024). Exploring the sexual experiences and challenges of individuals with cerebral palsy. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, 17(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-240006 13 World Health Organisation. Sexual and Reproductive Health. (2017). Available from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/sexual_health/sh_definitions/en/
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 12
Submission 752
The World Association for Sexual Health (WAS)14 affirms that Sexual Justice needs to be at the forefront of government decisions. “WAS calls upon all state and non-state actors including governments, parliaments,… and other organizations and institutions… to dismantle systemic barriers of inequality, eliminate discrimination, and systemic violence, facilitate access to the full benefits of citizenship and to create a society where sexual health can be achieved and sexual justice and sexual rights are a lived reality for all”.
In this case, this has not been implemented and Sue and Francis are left “out in the cold”.
14 World Association of Sexual Health. WAS Declaration on Sexual Justice. (2025). https://www.worldsexualhealth.net/was-declaration-on-sexual-justice
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 13
Submission 752
Appendix 2: Poster of Sue & Francis case study
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 14
Submission 752
Appendix 3: Policy brief
POLICY BRIEF
Addressing Malignant Social Psychology
(MSP) & Legal non-Compliance
in National Disability Insurance Scheme
(NDIS) Funding Decisions
FOR: NDIS Decision Makers and Governance bodies, Policy Advisors, and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
SUBJECT: Case Study Analysis of Francis and Sue15 -
Restoring Personhood through Legislative and Human Rights
Compliance
15 Francis & Sue are pseudonyms chosen by a married couple in their 50’s, who both have cerebral palsy and have been NDIS participants since its inception.
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 15
Submission 752
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Introduction: The Erosion of Personhood 2
- Evidence of Malignant Social Psychology (MSP) 3
- Legal and Human Rights Non-Compliance 4
- Proposed Framework: Adopt Person-Centered Practice 5
- Key systemic recommendations 8
APPENDIX 1: 9
The 17 aspects of malignant social psychology 9
- Introduction: The Erosion of Personhood In disability support, ‘personhood’ is a status bestowed upon one human being by
others in the context of relationship and social connection. In the 1990’s Professor Tom
Kitwood described 17 types of negative interactions16 which he diagnosed as aspects of
a malignant social psychology (MSP), that systematically strips an individual of
personhood, leading to ‘social death’ and severe psychological decline.
This brief demonstrates how analysis of Francis and Sue’s case study shows the
NDIA’s handling of their ‘conjugal support’ needs constitutes a series of 11 types of
malignant interactions. Some of these directly contravene the NDIS Act 2013 and the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
It also recommends remedies based on the principles of person-centred practice, which
were also identified and categorised by Professor Kitwood as the antithesis of MSP.
Person-centered practice is now considered to be the “cornerstone of best practice” by
international healthcare organisations17 and the gold standard across many domains of
Australian Government & non-Gov’t services, including the NDIS.
16 See APPENDIX A: The 17 aspects of malignant social psychology 17 Lisa Kelly, Bill Ahessy, Ita Richardson, Hilary Moss, Aligning Kitwood’s Model of Person-Centered Dementia Care
with Music Therapy Practice, Music Therapy Perspectives, Volume 41, Issue 2, Fall 2023, Pages 198–206,
https://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/miad015
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 16
Submission 752
- Evidence of Malignant Social Psychology (MSP) Based on the full case study of Francis and Sue, the NDIS has enacted the following 11
aspects of MSP towards this couple since cancelling their prior funding for ‘conjugal
supports’, causing documented reports of “frustration and torment”.
MSP Aspect NDIS Action / Evidence from Couples Case Study
-
Invalidation Substituting physical positioning support with a “Sex Therapist.” This denies Sue and Francis’ subjective reality: that their barrier is physical disability, not a lack of psychological insight.
-
Disempowerment Removing funding for physical and manoeuvring assistance. By doing so, the NDIS has removed their ability to exercise their basic human right to intimacy, rendering them powerless in their own marriage.
-
Infantilisation Suggesting a long-married couple needs “counseling” for intimacy. Francis describes this as “totally insulting” as it treats adults like children who lack agency.
-
Withholding Explicitly denying the specific means (conjugal support) necessary for a “meaningful marriage,” despite medical concerns caused by the lack of support.
-
Ignoring The NDIA “disregarded the reports altogether” when provided with Occupational Therapy and functional capacity tests that justified the need for specific services, treating the couple’s evidence as non-existent.
-
Labeling Reducing a lifelong marital bond to the clinical/legal label of “sexual services” or “everyday living costs” to justify exclusion, ignoring the “disability-specific” nature of the need.
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 17
Submission 752
-
Stigmatisation Treating their marital rights as something illicit or “outside the bounds” of normal personal support, effectively making the couple feel like outcasts from the scheme.
-
Objectification Treating the couple’s intimacy as a cold administrative “ruling,” ignoring the human and health consequences of their forced separation.
-
Imposition Forcing a “psychological assessment” as the only funded pathway, overriding the couple’s choice and their actual expressed physical requirements.
-
Disruption The sudden removal of prior funding in 2017/18 shattering the couple’s sense of stability and “frame of reference.”
-
Disparagement The institutional refusal to support the “core of a marriage” communicates a view that the couple’s marital intimacy is worthless or a “nuisance” to the budget.
These 11 examples show a clear pattern of malignant social interactions enacted by
NDIS towards Sue & Francis between 2017 - 2026.
- Legal and Human Rights Non-Compliance
NDIS ACT 2013
The NDIS’s malignant actions breach the following sections of the NDIS Act 2013
Section 3(1)(e): Choice and Control. The Act mandates that participants exercise
choice and control. The NDIA’s imposition of a psycho-therapist — when physical
support was the requested choice — violates this core object.
Section 3(1)(c): Support Independence and Social Participation. By withholding the
means to be ‘meaningfully married’, the NDIA actively prevents a fundamental form of
social participation.
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 18
Submission 752
Section 4: General Principle. People with disability have the same right as other
members of Australian society to realise their potential for physical, social, emotional
and intellectual development18. The NDIS has trampled Francis and Sue’s rights in the
interests of administrative convenience and political expediency.
The UNCRPD
NDIS interactions also breach the following UNCRPD articles19:
Article 3: Inherent Dignity. Enacting aspects of malignant social psychology (as detailed above) is a systemic failure to respect the inherent dignity of Francis and Sue. Article 23: Respect for Home and the Family. Explicitly requires States to eliminate discrimination in matters relating to marriage. Withholding physical means for marital intimacy is a direct breach of this right. Article 25: Health. The failure to provide support resulting in “persistent pelvic pain” and “psychological distress” violates the right to the highest attainable standard of health.
- Proposed Framework: Adopt Person-Centered Practice In March 2025 the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission released an Evidence review - Person-Centred Practice. The review aims to provide “NDIS providers and worker, people with disability, their family, supporters, and health and allied health professionals and practitioners with a definition of person-centred practice and types of evidence-based person-centred practice in disability as reported in available literature.” In the executive summary it lists the following key findings and a compelling conclusion that the NDIS needs to pay much closer attention to:
Key findings
● ‘Person-centred’ puts the person at the centre of their own life focusing on their needs and circumstances, including making decisions in service planning and delivery.
18 NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME ACT 2013 - SECT 4 General principles guiding actions under this Act - Principle 1
19 UNCRPD
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 19
Submission 752
● Person-centred practice can be understood through six core principles based on the values of equality and the self-determination of human beings. The six principles are:
○ 1. Promoting quality of life and personal goals.
○ 2. Recognising and facilitating what matters to that person.
○ 3. Addressing psychological, social, spiritual and cultural needs.
○ 4. The right to make independent and informed choices, free from paternalism, undue influence or discrimination.
○ 5. Enabling and supporting the person to participate in their care and life at the level they desire.
○ 6. Having the education, information and support to make decisions
● Person-centred practice can be implemented everyday by focusing on the person and interacting with them with dignity, compassion and respect. There are five ways to do this:
- Honouring the person
- Building relationships
- Being strengths-based and capacity focused
- Facilitating participation, engagement and social inclusion
- Being compassionate ● Organisations that are person-centred have strong values of being individualised and adaptive towards the person they support, and support their staff with leadership modelling, reflective practice and training to demonstrate everyday person-centred practice
● There are three person-centred practices that have been found to improve quality of life, health and wellbeing, decrease behaviours of concern and achieve other significant outcomes for people with disability. These practices are:
1.Person-Centred Planning
2.Active Support
3.Behaviour Support
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 20
Submission 752
Conclusion
This evidence review provides an examination of person-centred practice in disability services, outlining its key principles, implementation strategies and evidence-based benefits. Person centred practice prioritises the rights, preferences and well-being of [people] with disability, ensuring they have autonomy and control over their lives and the services they receive. When person-centred practice such as Person-Centred Planning, Active Support and Behaviour Support are used, people with disability can experience increased engagement and wellbeing. This requires organisational commitment and a person-centred culture led by strong leadership to model the expectations of workers to work in a person-centred way
The NDIS must be held accountable to the same person-centered
standards as those providing services under the system it governs and
operates.
To regain legal and ethical compliance, the NDIS must pivot to
person-centered practice for this couple and act in accordance with
recommendations of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.
The NDIS can do so by taking the following three steps to ensure the principles of
person-centered practice are enacted in regards to Sue and Francis’ conjugal support
needs:
1. Formally acknowledge Francis and Sue’s physical necessity of ‘disability-specific sexual supports’ to engage in their marital rights. (Principle 1. Honouring the person; Principle 2. Building relationships)
2. Provide funding for an appropriate ‘support person’ required for physical positioning and sexual manoeuvring during their conjugal relations ( i.e. a sex worker). (Principle 3. Being strengths-based and capacity focused; Principle 4. Facilitating participation, engagement and social inclusion)\
3. Engage in genuine dialogue to address their disability-specific sexual supports, rather than top-down bureaucratic mandates. (Principle 5. Being compassionate)
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 21
Submission 752
- Key systemic recommendations The NDIS must take the following additional steps to address systemic problems:
1. Human rights audit: conduct an immediate review of all plans where “conjugal supports” were removed to ensure compliance with UNCRPD Article 23
2. Mandate person-centered training: implement training for NDIS leadership, managers and plan assessors on the better practice guidelines outlined in the publication: NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission - Evidence review Person-centred practice
3. “Consult with NDIS participants and people with disability to co-design a comprehensive sexuality policy that acknowledges and respects the diverse sexual and intimacy needs of people with disability. The disability community has long called for such a policy to ensure that sexual supports are accessible, reduce fear and stigma associated with seeking these supports, and provide clear, consistent guidelines for the approval and use of NDIS funding for these
purposes.” 20 20 Joint Position Statement - NDIS and sexuality, August 2024, Recommendation - The Need for a Comprehensive Sexuality Policy. (Endorsed by 45 Australian organisations and disability service providers
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 22
Submission 752
APPENDIX 1: The 17 aspects of malignant social psychology
Treachery & Disempowerment:
Using deception or preventing the use of remaining abilities.
Infantilisation & Intimidation: Treating someone like a child or inducing fear.
Labelling & Stigmatisation: Defining someone by their diagnosis or treating them as an outcast.
Outpacing & Invalidation: Rushing care or dismissing a person’s reality.
Banishment & Objectification: Social exclusion or treating a person as an object.
Ignoring & Imposition: Acting as if the person is not there or forcing actions upon them.
Withholding & Accusation: Denying care or blaming the person for their limitations.
Disruption & Mockery: Unnecessary intrusion or making fun of the person.
Disparagement: Conveying that the person is worthless.
Touching Base Inc ® Submisison to Senate Enquiry - NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 23